Posts

138. Mark McGrath: The Adaptive Entrepreneurial Method: VUCA, OODA, IOT

/0 Comments/in /by

Austrian economics is distinctive in its recognition and, indeed, embrace of continuous change: customer preferences change, competitors’ actions change, markets change, technology changes, prices change, business methods change. New knowledge is continuously created and accumulated. And Austrian economics equally recognizes that entrepreneurial businesses must change in response: capital combinations change, supplier and customer relationships change, organization structure changes, business portfolios and value propositions change. Continuous change is required — which is something business has not traditionally been designed for. How do businesses manage continuous change?

In the current digital age, the rate of change in the external business environment is accelerating, largely as a consequence of rapid technological evolution and the ways in which customer behavior and preferences change in response. We plan to cover the issue of continuous change from multiple angles in the coming weeks and months.

This week, Mark McGrath joins us to review a tool for value creation amidst continuous, roiling change. It has been around for a while and so is proven in multiple arenas and situations. It goes by the name of OODA.

Key Takeaways and Actionable Insights

The OODA loop is a deeply sourced tool that draws on eastern philosophy, western science, and aligns with Austrian economics.

When a firm as a network of individuals, knowledge, ideas, tools, processes and resources works with clients and customers and their systems, all should be better off as a result of their co-ordinated action. The better the capacity to learn and make adjustments together, the better the capability to recognize and seize opportunities, and to act at co-ordinated speed. Those who can handle the rate of change fastest will be the most successful.

The originator of the OODA loop model, John Boyd, synthesized thinking from multiple sources about this problem. In business, we can call it the Adaptive Entrepreneurial Method.

The loop is triggered by uncertainty, or what is referred to in the model as VUCA:

Volatility — circumstances change abruptly and unpredictably;

Uncertainty — knowledge is incomplete and the future is indeterminate;

Complexity — we are individuals in a dynamic interconnected whole with emergent outcomes;

Ambiguity — multiple interpretations from multiple observers, and multiple conclusions.

VUCA enters the OODA loop as unfolding interaction with the ever-changing external environment or market, as information and data coming into the company, and as unfolding circumstances, whether these are the company’s own sales trends and customer relationships or the activities of competitors.

VUCA is the state of the universe. It’s the normal condition that entrepreneurs should assume as the basis for action. It also creates an exciting state of opportunity in which dynamically adaptive entrepreneurial businesses can thrive.

OODA is a feedback loop.

OODA stands for observing, orienting, deciding, acting — a continuous process.

The OODA Loop

Orientation is critical to successful operation of the model. For a firm or for an individual entrepreneur, orientation is a mélange of inputs: mindset, personality, our way of thinking and interpreting, previous experiences and how we’ve processed them, our ability to process new information, our ability to handle change, our ability to analyze and break things down while simultaneously piecing things together and synthesizing them into an insight or construct that never existed before.

Orientation houses all our biases, and all our cognitive models. It’s how we perceive and how we experience the world. It determines how we process all the information we observe.

Decisions are hypotheses.

From our orientation-determined analysis and synthesis of incoming data, we envision a future state: what could happen if we did something? In Misesian terms, we imagine what it would be like in the future if we were able to address our own uneasiness — if we were to change our current state and trade it for another one. Any action that follows must be preceded by a decision, a hypothesis of what we think might happen.

Action is an experiment to test the hypothesis.

In applying the OODA loop, entrepreneurs demonstrate a bias for learning and a bias for action. We learn by testing what happens when we act and making new observations of the outcomes of the action. These outcomes will give us new signals to employ in re-orienting to ensure that our decisions and actions are well-aligned with reality.

The OODA loop model is consistent with the Explore and Expand approach to business strategy.

At Economics For Business, we have frequently urged entrepreneurial firms to abandon business school strategic thinking and replace it with an Explore-And-Expand approach, running many fast, low-cost exploratory experiments and quickly expanding investment in those that work, discarding others. In OODA loop, experiments are decisions and actions, and re-orientation results in expanding application of the successful ones.

In OODA, we continuously build and re-build our perception of the VUCA world and attempt to match our perception with reality through exploration and expansion. We aim to ensure our orientation is attuned to the way the world is and not to the way we want it to be or imagine it to be.

The more we learn, the more we build and re-build, the faster we can advance. Speed of learning is important, so long as it is based on well-processed information.

Guidance and control.

In the OODA loop graphic, there are two areas designated “implicit guidance and control”: our actions and our observations. Our orientation implicitly guides and controls both. Our orientation as entrepreneurs or as economists will always affect how we perceive things. Where some might see an obstacle, others see an opportunity. That’s orientation at work. On the action side, orientation implicitly guides and controls our actions. There are some things we can do automatically, employing heuristics or procedures that we don’t stop to think about. This also is orientation at work — and at speed.

Continuous testing.

The OODA loop, processing VUCA information into decisions and action via continuous reorientation, is a test. An entrepreneur is always being tested. As time moves unstoppably forward, new challenges continuously emerge. It’s the ceaseless flux of human affairs, as Mises put it in Human Action.

If we maintain an open and flexible or agile approach or orientation to this continuous testing, we’ll avoid failure.

Focusing on a well-understood purpose will eliminate wasted time and wasted action.

The Adaptive Entrepreneurial Model has three major elements: VUCA, the way the world is; OODA, as described above; and IOT. IOT stands for In Order To: the purpose or mission. As we deal with VUCA, and continuously change our orientation as we learn from our decisions and experiments, quickly finding out what works and what doesn’t, we must never lose sight of our purpose and our intent. What are we trying to accomplish?

Everyone in our firm, or on our team, must share the same purpose and be able to articulate it in the same way. When that’s the case, creative and co-ordinating action can move forward without instruction: we don’t have to tell people what to do when they’re in the middle of VUCA so long as they have the same shared purpose in mind. Everyone focuses on what needs to happen and why. There’s never action for action’s sake; it’s always with a shared purpose. If team members do not share the same understanding of purpose, then they’re creating more VUCA. If they do share understanding, the orchestration of their individual efforts produces harmony.

People, ideas, things — in that order.

All action is human action, all decisions are human decisions, all teams are human teams. When orientations are aligned, harmonious co-ordinated action is possible. There’s a high priority on relationships — with teammates, colleagues, customers, vendors, partners.

In a business utilizing the OODA model, people always come first because they are the ones who act. Ideas follow, judged through the lens of helping people to decide and act. Things — technology, property, money — are at the third priority level to ensure they support people and enable their ideas.

“A sound understanding in application of these comments will yield geometric results.”

Improved results are the repayment for the effort expended to study the Adaptive Entrepreneurial Method.

Additional Resources

“The Adaptive Entrepreneurial Model — Core Thesis” (PDF): Download PDF

John Boyd’s “OODA Loop Graphic” (PPT): Download PPT

“The Epistemology of the OODA Loop” (PDF): Download PDF

“Destruction And Creation” by John R. Boyd (PDF): Download PDF

The Theory Of Dynamic Efficiency by Jesús Huerta De Soto: Download PDF

The Ultimate Foundation Of Economic Science by Ludwig von Mises: Read it on Mises.org

Firms Thrive When They Ditch Strategic Planning And Adopt Exploration And Discovery.

/0 Comments/in /by

Strategic planning enjoys a prestigious image in the business world. It’s taught at the top business schools, and then practiced in an elite corporate department headed by a C-Suite officer. It uses high technology to collect and analyze data, and sophisticated models to determine its recommendations, which ultimately guide the most important business decisions about allocation of capital and resources, which markets to enter and compete in, whom to hire and how to organize, and all the most critical choices a company faces. It is to strategy that winning CEO’s attribute their success, and to which business books and magazines devote their thousands and millions of words.

Strategy is bunkum. At least as it is taught in business schools.

Strategy tries to be objective in a subjective world.

Strategy utilizes data-fueled top-down planning models. Some of the models are mathematical predictions – aiming to forecast how many units will be sold in Pittsburgh or Portsmouth in 2023. Others are frameworks that purport to increase the potential for success. Corporate planning departments pump information into SWOT models, Five Forces Frameworks, PESTEL worksheets and many more data structures with the promise that the analytical outputs will contribute to enhanced business performance by fixing weaknesses, enhancing strengths, cultivating best practices and focusing best efforts. We can classify this thinking as object-based: the business environment is capable of summation in data and simulation in mathematical models and can be shaped and changed by corporate action.

The opposite is the truth. The role of the firm is to generate value for customers, and customers’ evaluations of corporate offerings is subjective. Value is an emotion, an experience of using or consuming a produced good or service and feeling satisfaction. A value-generation process is equally subjective, based on the feeling or intuition or judgement that a business is able to facilitate that experience for the customer. Whilst this value flow is turned into money via the consumer’s willingness to pay for the experience, the revenue flow (which is objective) results from the interaction of business intent to generate value and a customer’s subjective evaluation of whether the business’s value promise was kept.

Learning versus smart design.

How does a business get this interaction with customers right? The B-school peddlers of strategic planning would say, “By design”. They mean data gathering on the external environment, internal assessment of performance and trends and proven capabilities – essentially, looking backwards in order to project forwards.

The Austrian view is that all progress is a function of learning. Specifically, learning about what works and what doesn’t work, without any attempt to forecast the outcome in advance. Which initiatives produce desirable outcomes and which fail to do so. In order to learn, therefore, it is necessary to act, to do something. Do businesses act without knowing what is going to happen as a result? Of course. Are they guided by corporate strategy? Only if the “strategy” is: Let’s learn. Let’s not pre-judge what we think will be the result. Let’s not make false promises to ourselves. And, of course, those sentiments are anathema to the strategists.

Implementation versus Formulation

The consequence of the “Let’s learn” approach to company performance and progress is that strategy can not be formulated from on high, at the top of the organization, and then handed down. The process operates in reverse. The front line of the company, interfacing and interacting with customers, identifies customer needs, makes changes, tries new things, calls for new ideas, experiments and adapts to changing circumstances. There is continuous implementation, doing, responding and observing.

Some of the new ideas and changes become programs or initiatives, and draw resources from elsewhere in the corporation or from partners in a value creation network. Some of these programs hint at success, others don’t. Some become formalized. Some find customers willing to pay, and become revenue streams. They become reinforced with additional resources and the revenue stream accelerates and expands.

This is implementation. There was no strategy formulation preceding the implementation. There probably were some guidelines, some internal signals to channel the external activities – sometimes called corporate culture. There’s a shared sense of generally how the company generates value in response to customer needs and market development. The shared sense is translated into specific implementations by individuals or local offices or customer teams and the learning – the code of “what works and what doesn’t” – is fed back to the corporation for even wider sharing.

Dispersion versus Centralization.

Centralization is a structural attribute of strategic planning. Data is collected and consolidated centrally, and processed centrally. A group of strategists in the administrative center of the organization works with the data to develop plans and allocate resources to those plans.

In the learning-by-implementation method, centralization is damaging. To enable the freedom to learn and to apply learning, decision making must be dispersed through the organization. A single mind or single planning unit can not centralize all the knowledge and can’t centralize decision making. A strategic plan is not feasible. Organizational design and decision-making processes must be decentralized and dispersed.

Structure versus Strategy

In the strategic planning model, a company is structured or organized to take advantage of the strategy that’s been designed for it by the central planners. It’s divided into what are often called strategic business units (i.e. units structured based on the dictates of the designed strategy), and additionally into sub-units, geographies, functions and other pieces. Structure follows strategy. Strategy must be fully formulated before the business can be organized.

Austrian thinking runs in the opposite direction. Austrians take the opposite approach: the structure of the firm (its organization, processes and interfaces with the external environment) shapes strategy. This is particularly important for existing businesses. Too often, strategists (especially if they are external consultants) recommend “transformations”, which require significant structural change. Austrians understand that this is not realistic because it’s not possible to restructure an existing organization every time a new strategic vision comes along. There’s a high cost to structural change, and strategy must adjust.

Strategy is emergent, based on value exploration and new value discoveries.

What, then, replaces top-down strategic planning?

Strategy is emergent, not planned. Strategy is entrepreneurial. It’s a continuous process of learning through action and discovery. Sometimes, firms discover things they really wish they hadn’t. That’s part of the process through which, eventually, strategy evolves. Over time, a firm can adopt some simple guidelines for its frontline members to utilize in their explorations, and these can seem to bring some order. But adaptation to new circumstances is always required. Profit is the signal that adaptation is successful.

We use the term explore and expand to capture the Austrian approach to strategy. Firms are always exploring, seeking ways to improve performance. When some experiments yield promising results, they can be expanded. Explore and expand is a trade-off: how much of the available resources should be allocated to each type of activity. Entrepreneurs manage the trade-off in order to succeed. There’s no strategic plan from on high to make the trade-off for them.

Entrepreneurial Economics Explained.

/0 Comments/in /by

There is a body of economic science that has identified entrepreneurship as the driving force of economic growth. 

The purpose of economic science is to discover and verify methods to achieve increased well-being for individuals, families and any groups they form or choose to belong to, such as communities and firms or collaborative networks and associations. Scientific process and results must be realistic, i.e. relate to the real world rather than to mathematical equations and models.

Economic science uses the language of means and ends: the science aims to identify the best and most appropriate means for achieving chosen ends. In the economics of individual well-being, the ends are not represented by so-called aggregate measures such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP – a measure of the total monetary value of finished goods and services produced within a country’s borders) or total employment. 

The end of this body of economic science is individual satisfaction, often identified via the concept of subjective value – subjective in the sense that the individual decides what is valuable and what they value. In this way, customers run the economy. Whatever they feel satisfies their needs and wants, i.e. what they decide is valuable, is what is ultimately produced. In this sense, customers create value – it isn’t valuable if they don’t say so. Economic growth means more of what customers feel is valuable.

Customers get help in value creation from the entrepreneur. It is the entrepreneur who studies customers, ascertains what they think is valuable, and undertakes a production process to deliver that value. Logically, they are producing for a future value experience, because production takes time. 

This is why the role of the entrepreneur is so pivotal in the creation of new economic value. Entrepreneurs take all the responsibility and all the risk in value generation. They bet on being able to identify customer preferences pretty accurately (they can never be exactly right) and then they bet on being able to assemble resources in the form of a firm to produce for that preference, and they bet that the preferences won’t have changed before they get to market, and they bet that they can get not only the product or service right but also the price, and they bet they can beat competitors who are rivalrously eyeing up the same set of possibilities. 

Economic science observes and recognizes this role of the entrepreneur. It’s not a matter of personality – anyone can be an entrepreneur. There is definitely a method to entrepreneurship, in spite of (in fact, because of) the uncertainty of betting on customers’ future preferences. The economics of entrepreneurship is not fueled by sources of finance like debt or equity, but by imagination. Entrepreneurial projects are built on the choice of which customers to serve and how to serve them, imagining a future world in which customers’ formerly unmet needs are now satisfied. Imagination is turned into the design of a business model, which is the mechanics of actually delivering imagined value to customers. Revenue is the feedback loop that tells entrepreneurs that they have offered something valuable, and profit is the feedback loop that tells them that they chose the right costs.

To embark upon and stay on the path of successful production for profit, entrepreneurs must embrace and overcome uncertainty. How do they do this? They act. They make a commitment. They get started on the project or business initiative. Having once moved into action, they begin to learn. They can never be 100% right, so some parts of what they do will go wrong, and be unsuccessful. 

The entrepreneurial firm learns what doesn’t work and what does, discards the former and does more of the latter. Business strategy is experimentation and learning, not multi-slide presentations and extensive spreadsheets. Agility – fast learning, fast adjustment – beats business school training.

Because of entrepreneurial exploration and experimentation to identify what works, the world advances – people enjoy more satisfaction and a higher standard of living, services and technology improve, and civilization advances. The world we live in is shaped by entrepreneurial economics.

One clear implication of this body of economic science is that there is no place for – and no need for – government economic policy. It can only get in the way of entrepreneurial exploration and experimentation. Governments extract value from the economy through their taxes and regulation, and then sometimes claim to redistribute it via subsidies and rebates. They claim to design policies such as what level of wages to pay, or the cost of imports, or the amount of market share any firm can have before an anti-trust suit. It’s all futile and, worse, damaging. In entrepreneurial economics, the role of government is to stand back, get out of the way, and marvel at the living standard enhancements entrepreneurship brings.

Academics call this body of science Austrian economics, because its early thought leaders came from Austria when Vienna was the commercial and cultural capital of the globe. Thinking in the Austrian way is helpful to entrepreneurial success, but, for economic growth, we don’t need to adopt the name, just the method.

Now Is A Good Time To Discard The Concepts Of Strategy, Planning And Strategic Planning.

/0 Comments/in /by

Business schools have been peddling strategic planning for 60 years or more. (Harvard Business School was founded in 1908, so the concept may even go back to that time.) A good deal of the conceptual ideas are said to have been borrowed from military planning. This origin story is illustrated in terminology such as “the battle for dominance” in markets or industries, or “defending market share”, or in language concerning “missions”, and ideas about a company’s strategic weapons or strategic arsenal.

More significantly, the concepts of strategic planning reflect the old-fashioned economics of equilibrium, of market structure and industry boundaries. It’s an approach based on statics and balance. Firms are advised to position themselves within a market map or industry map, often depicted as a box, and to mark out territory for which to fight over with similarly equipped rivals. They are advised how to fend off attacking forces.

It’s all sounds very World War One: massed armies facing off across a flat battlefield, guns drawn and cannons loaded and at the ready. Generals at the apex of the pyramidal hierarchy of command issuing orders to the lower-level officers and the troops.

Business is nothing like this, of course. Economists, led by those of the Austrian school, now recognize that the economy and the economic environment in which businesses operate is ever-changing, roiling and swirling in dynamic re-orientation and re-adjustment. The economy is an ecosystem of entrepreneurial projects, and, as a result of the trillions upon trillions of exchanges and interactions, adaptations and adjustments that take place at increasing speed across an expanding geographic playing field, there is no predictability to the outcomes and no possibility of control of the ongoing processes.

Strategy and planning are misguided attempts at prediction and control. There is great hubris involved: that accomplished strategists deploying advanced mathematics and sophisticated intellectual tools can overcome the uncertainties that baffle and defy lesser minds. Business schools that promise to coach managers in this alchemy can charge very high fees for the chimera of certainty. But their promise is empty. It can’t be kept.

What’s the alternative to strategic planning?

What’s the alternative? As always, there is a combination answer from the identification of the applicable theory, and its implementation in practice.

First, business practitioners must clear their minds of the memes of prediction and control over future outcomes. To do so, they can study and master complexity theory. This body of analysis has established that the outcomes of economic systems are emergent – unpredictable, even random. Or, as the mathematicians and computational modelers put it, non-linear. They are not the result of the interplay of variables in an equation. The key to understanding complex systems is to analyze them at the level of the individual – such as a single consumer – and their interactions with other individuals. The smallest geographies, most local neighborhoods and individual units provide the relevant measurements and data. This is the opposite approach to the grand sweep of global or market strategies and resource planning.

The second step in the escape from the tyranny of planning is to adopt the mindset of ignorance: to be open to the reality of not knowing and not being able to predict. The management method to employ is “explore and expand”. Because the most successful initiatives can not be identified in advance in the ever-changing marketplace, businesses act to ensure they have a sufficient number of exploratory initiatives to search for routes to growth and customer satisfaction. Those explorations that demonstrate promise can be expanded via more investment to more geography, wider reach, and greater impact. Agile businesses keep a continuously updated portfolio of initiatives that are exploratory and capable of expansion, and the composition of the portfolio represents the business’s health. A business is an ecosystem of experiments and initiatives and projects, all at different stages of maturity and development. The capacity to add new projects while growing or maintaining those that have proven their worth in the marketplace is the indicator of a vibrant business model.

Jeff Bezos calls it “wandering”:

 wandering in business is not efficient … but it’s also not random. It’s guided — by hunch, gut, intuition, curiosity, and powered by a deep conviction that the prize for customers is big enough that it’s worth being a little messy and tangential to find our way there. Wandering is an essential counterbalance to efficiency. You need to employ both. The outsized discoveries — the “non-linear” ones — are highly likely to require wandering.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/04/11/jeff-bezos-explains-why-wandering-is-key-to-amazon.aspx

Historically, strategy has been a time-consuming act of comparative statics based on data, trying to identify a future state of a business and how to attain it from a starting point in the past or present. Planning has been a static act of resource allocation, in which business units and divisions compete for budgets and then defend them aggressively against change.

Both of these activities are detrimental to business success, which requires adaptiveness to continually changing market feedback and changing circumstances. Adopting the explore-and-expand mindset can be both freeing in the creation of more options for business action, and accelerating in bringing new growth pathways to the fore.

The Age Of Strategy Is Over. The Replacement Is Explore And Expand

/0 Comments/in /by

Business schools, business writers, including retired CEO’s writing their memoirs, business bloggers, magazines and conference presenters all insist that strategy is the one mandatory for any individual or team that’s leading or managing a business. There’s no business without a strategy.

Well, I am here to tell you there is. In fact, strategy is way overblown as a business tool or business skill. Not only that, the way it is taught and written about is founded on an entirely false premise.

Strategy is presented to us as a knowledge tool, with the promise that, when the tool is well-used, it can influence future outcomes. When a strategic firm, or a strategic plan, or a strategic CEO, or a well-designed and implemented strategy goes to market, the result, we are assured, will be superior performance: more growth or revenues or market share, a stronger relative position vis-à-vis competitors, stock price appreciation, or some other objective measure of business success.

However, as a brief study of complexity economics makes clear, no market future is predictable, or even subject to influence, via strategy. The knowledge flow that is an input to strategy tools and debates is dynamic and constantly changing, always incomplete, and mostly tacit and non-quantifiable, impervious to the spreadsheet calculus of the strategic planning department. The confidence of the strategist, backed up by charts and graphs and data analytics and presented in powerpoint and video, is false and misplaced. Expertise in strategy development may be good for individual careers, but it has no value in business management because it can not possibly paint an accurate picture of the future. It  can not account for changes in the business environment, whether exogenous or endogenous or (in what is usually the case) a combination of both. Decisions made on the basis of a strategic plan for the future will be blessed with no more certainty as a result of all the effort that went into the planning exercise.

Yet strategy and strategic planning remain a core product of the business education and publishing industry. Why? Mostly because of a lack of alternatives. If businesses don’t have strategy tools to utilize for making the one year and five year plans with which they guide resource allocation and tactical implementation, what’s their alternative? Until recently, there has not been one.

Now, however, an alternative is emerging. That’s a careful choice of wording, because the idea of emergence is core to navigating the business world without strategic planning. Emergence is a property of complex systems such that outcomes occur that are not predictable from the properties of the components of the system or from their interaction. The new properties that the system produces are not shared with the components from which the system is made up or with prior states. Emergent outcomes can not be predicted, they can only be observed.

Peter Corning, one of the early students of complex systems wrote:

Rules, or laws, have no causal efficacy; they do not in fact “generate” anything.

He used the analogy of a chess game, which has very precise rules, but they have no predictive power.

Even in a chess game, you cannot use the rules to predict “history” – i.e. the course of any given game. Indeed, you cannot even reliably predict the next move in a chess game. Why? Because the “system” involves more than the rules of the game. It also includes the players and their unfolding, moment-by-moment decisions among a large number of available options at each choice point. 

If emergence is the characteristic outcome of complex systems, and it can’t be predicted, where does that leave business strategy? It’s a process for which its protagonists claim the capability of prediction: business results will be better with the adoption of the recommendations of strategic planners, who study data, trends and business conditions and competition and markets to arrive at formulations of how to allocate resources optimally, sometimes described as “where to play and how to win”. 

The theory of complex systems suggests that it is impossible to identify where to play and how to win, and dangerously hubristic to try.  The alternative to strategy is a balanced process we can call explore and expand. A business should organize around the activity of exploration: attempting as many new initiatives as possible, and allocating authority to do so to the outermost edges of the organization, those operating directly with customers, active in local markets with all their local variation and distinctive conditions. If any initiatives appear to be effective in meeting customer goals and therefore meeting the goals of the business, quickly expand those initiatives so that more parts of the organization can utilize the learning and more resources can be brought to bear in their activation.

Where strategy pursues standardization and conformity around one set of plans, Explore And Expand prizes variation, and looks to identify more and more ways to pursue value improvements. This is a way of harnessing complexity, as Robert Axelrod and Michael Cohen refer to it, in the book with that title.

Axelrod and Cohen point to a couple of organizational attributes that render the Explore And Expand approach viable. One is the existence and maintenance of rich networks of engagement, between the firm and its customers, within the firm between individuals and decision-making units, and amongst customers. The more information that can flow through these networks from acts of exploration, and the faster it flows, the greater the economic productivity of value improvement.

Second is the development of short-term, fine-grained measures of success, so that the exploration activities can be relieved of the time burden of long wait periods to read results. Although it remains important to be alert to misattribution of outcomes to actions, getting more learning more quickly is generally advantageous, and measurement systems should be aligned with this need for rapidity.

In sum, we should consider the age of strategy in business over, and prepare ourselves for the age of Explore And Expand.